USAF Report Indicates Microburst A Factor In C-130 Firefighting Accident | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date






Airborne On ANN

Airborne 09.28.15

Airborne 09.29.15

Airborne 09.30.15

Airborne 10.01.15

Airborne 10.02.15

Airborne Hi-Def On YouTube

Airborne 09.28.15

Airborne 09.29.15

Airborne 09.30.15

Airborne 10.01.15

Airborne 10.02.15

EAA/ANN AirVenture Innovation Preview

AIP-#1 Vimeo

AIP-#2 Vimeo

AIP-Part 1 YouTube

AIP-Part 2 YouTube

Fri, Nov 16, 2012

USAF Report Indicates Microburst A Factor In C-130 Firefighting Accident

Crew Misjudged Wind Conditions While Flying In The South Dakota Black Hills

The crew of a MAFFS C-130 engaged in a firefight mission misjudged wind conditions and flew into the area of a microburst, which caused the airplane to impact the ground. That is the assessment of an Air Force accident panel investigating the crash.

The accident occurred July 1. In releasing an executive summary of the full report from the Air Force Mobility Command, Brig. Gen. Randall Guthrie said that the pilots' actions allowed two crewmembers in the back of the plane to survive the accident.

Stars and Stripes reports that the investigation found that that the C-130 Hercules tanker flew into a microburst just a few minutes after the pilot narrowly avoided an accident from another downdraft. Guthrie said that the crew had "struggled" to regain airspeed after their first drop of fire retardant, and the airplane encountered the microburst on the second run. He said that the prop from the number 4 engine struck the door near the back of the aircraft, and gave the loadmasters there an opportunity to escape. The four crewmen in the cockpit were killed instantly, Guthrie said.

The General said that the crew should have aborted the second run given the weather conditions, but added that they were not solely to blame for the accident. He said that a smaller lead plane did not adequately communicate the conditions to the MAFFS crew, but that considering that airplane had "barely escaped" impacting the ground, the lack of communications was "understandable." He also said that there was no ground control that could have provided a warning about weather conditions.

The full report has not been released. A safety investigation board will determine if any safety recommendations need to be made.

(USAF Image)



More News

Airborne 10.02.15: LauncherOne Milestones, A/C Mngmt Legislation, UAV Safety

Also: Open Aviation Safety Reporting, ICAS 2015, Apache/Chinook Orders, Flexjet, Journey To Space Film, Sport/GA Decline?, Soloy Aviation ANN Airborne Link:>[...]

Aero-News: Quote Of The Day (10.04.15)

“Refuelling between the KC-30A and F-35A is an important step towards the KC-30A’s achievement of Final Operational Capability (FOC) and represents continued progress i>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (10.04.15)

Aero Linx: Vintage Sailplane Association The purpose of the Vintage Sailplane Association (VSA) is to promote the acquision, restoration and flying of vintage sailplanes by its mem>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (10.04.15): Flight Information Service-Broadcast

Flight Information Service-Broadcast (FIS−B) A ground broadcast service provided through the ADS−B Broadcast Services network over the UAT data link that operates on 97>[...]

ANN FAQ: Feel The Propwash (Updated)

New Form Makes Subscribing, Unsubscribing Even Easier While we're very proud of our newly-redesigned website, we know that some folks really enjoy the convenience of having their A>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus





© 2007 - 2015 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC